Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Ex-general links gay troops to Bosnian genocide

By Ed O'Keefe

Updated 6:27 p.m. ET
A retired Marine general told senators on Thursday that the Dutch Army failed to protect the city of Srebrenica during the Bosnian war partly because of the presence of gay soldiers in its armed forces.

John J. Sheehan, a former NATO commander who retired in 1997, made his comments during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bans gay people from openly serving in uniform.

The collapse of the Soviet Union led European militaries, including the Netherlands, to believe there was no longer a need for active combat capabilities, Sheehan said.

"As a result, they declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military," he said, noting that the Dutch allowed troops to join unions and enlisted openly gay soldiers. Dutch forces were poorly led and unable to hold off Serb forces in 1995, leading to the execution of Bosnian Muslims and one of the largest European massacres since World War II, Sheehan said.

Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) asked Sheehan whether Dutch leaders blamed the presence of gay troops in later conversations.

"They included that as part of the problem," Sheehan said.

Pressed by Levin to name names, Sheehan cited Dutch Army Chief of Staff Hankman Berman, who was fired by the Dutch Parliament for failing to protect Srebrenica.

Levin called Sheehan's assertions "off target," but agreed that Dutch forces were poorly trained for the fight.

"But to slip over -- or slide over from that into a suggestion that it's something to do with the fact that homosexuals were allowed in the -- in the Dutch army suggests that, somehow or other, homosexuals are not great fighters," Levin said.

Sheehan later clarified that the general liberalization of the Dutch military contributed to the Srebenica debacle.

In a statement, Dutch Ambassador Renée Jones-Bos said, "I take pride in the fact that lesbians and gays have served openly and with distinction in the Dutch military forces for decades, such as in Afghanistan at the moment."

"The military mission of Dutch U.N. soldiers at Srebrenica has been exhaustively studied and evaluated, nationally and internationally," Jones-Bos said. "There is nothing in these reports that suggests any relationship between gays serving in the military and the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims."

Sheehan testified alongside a former Army major and former Navy lieutenant who were discharged because they are gay. The Armed Services panel has held a series of hearings to explore repealing the military's ban on gay service members. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced a bill this month that would repeal the ban. Military leaders and congressional Republicans want to hold off on a repeal until the Pentagon completes its review of the policy.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

By Ed O'Keefe  | March 18, 2010; 6:18 PM ET
Categories:  Workplace Issues  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: SEC chairman discusses Lehman oversight (Video)
Next: Eye Opener: Postal Service defends cutbacks

Comments

LOL what a jerk this guy is. LOL

Posted by: scon101 | March 18, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Really? The guy is picking on the Dutch military? Because they have gays serving? That's all he has to offer?

Psst...general, the Brits and the Israelis (just to name a couple of our allies) allow open gays to serve...you going after them next?

Posted by: js_edit | March 18, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

This guy has been one of our military leaders? No wonder our troops are in such disarray. I feel bad for the foot soldier that have to comply with order from lunatics like this guy.

Posted by: nimes1 | March 18, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

It is increasingly pathetic how desperate US military homophobes will lie outright in order to reduce the number of open homosexuals in the military. (By the way, openly homosexual Canadian army, airforce, and naval personnel have been serving in Afganistan and in supporting US forces in Iraq, from the beginning.) Another reason for us Canadians to get out as soon as possible!

Posted by: ChrisVogel | March 18, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Good heavens! Lieberman and I in agreement?

As far as Sheehan (sorry, I can't disrespect the Corps by calling him "General"), his bigotry is showing. And if he found out how many times he has relied upon Marines who just happened to be gay, he'd have a coronary.

But I'm sure McCain and the rest of the GOP homophobes will trot him out whenever they want to damage America by attacking loyal soldiers of the US Military.

Semper Fi!

Posted by: lmb02 | March 18, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Sheehan is an idiot.

Posted by: jjedif | March 18, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Lame.

Posted by: Ladyrantsalot | March 18, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

If it weren't for the gays in their military, we'd all be speakind Dutch right now.

Posted by: DCCharles | March 18, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

If the military will allow OPENLY GAYS, it's a sign for Christian soldiers to leave the military otherwise they will be annihilated by the enemies. God will not protect them. There is a right time when to fight a war.

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

The Israeli army is extremely overrated as a fighting force regardless of having homosexuals or not. The IDF got their butts handed to them in Lebanon in 2006.

Posted by: screwjob11 | March 18, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I guess cohesion in not a core requirement for the State military forces nowadays anymore... We have evolved, I guess... I always thought differences were not to be highlighted for an army to stand as one (hence the uniform and professional merit only privileges...) Maybe Iran and Hamas should think about opening up to gay and unionized terrorists too... They already have female suicide bombers...

Posted by: marabout_noir1 | March 18, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

You civilians think it's such an easy fix... "just repeal the policy and allow gays to serve openly" You know what, life is not fair. In the USA, if you're gay and TRULY want to serve your country, then do it with the full intent - secretly. If you have to show your love for another person of the same sex, then canada would love to have you. Plus, they have better health care. Keep it how it is.

Posted by: americansoldier1 | March 18, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Everybody is not eligible to serve in the military for various reasons. Those reasons might not be valid in the civilian workforce, but military service is DIFFERENT. The ability of people in the military to function together as a unit has life and death implications that take precedence over the civil rights considerations applicable to civilians. Politics and the military are not a good mix.

Posted by: allamer1 | March 18, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Hold the phone guys. While this is an absolutely insane position with nothing to back it up except, perhaps, ingrained homophobia, this is not a stupid guy. This is a very bright, independent thinker with an horrendously ignorant position.

When he as asked to be the war czar for Bush:

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq.

He even wrote this in an editorial opinion to the Post:

I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan -- and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq.

Where he me up with this BS is puzzling. It just shows the depth of the problem when even bright guys are soooo scared of gays.

Posted by: joebanks | March 18, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Most of these people who want OPENLY GAYS to serve in the military are unbelievers. The Bible is full of examples how God destroys unbelievers. Christian soldiers should consider leaving the military if OPENLY GAYS will be allowed otherwise they could taste the wrath of God.

"Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the PUNISHMENT they deserve for their perversion." (Romans 1:27)

the PUNISHMENT they deserve for their perversion.

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

The Dutch people I have spoken with about this very thing have said to me that the Dutch soldiers had orders not to shoot. In fact it has been a source of severe psychological disorder for some Dutch soldiers who didn't shoot and as a result witnessed atrocities they could have prevented had they been allowed to shoot.

Recap: Dutch soldiers were ordered not to shoot.

Posted by: greeenmtns | March 18, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Is there something in the name Sheehan?

(Just kidding.)

Posted by: edlharris | March 18, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Its not a fear of gays, and i take offense to that comment. I have many gay friends, and I am ok with their decision. As allamer1 says, "The ability of people in the military to function together as a unit has life and death implications.."
I cant agree more with this

Posted by: americansoldier1 | March 18, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

An ex-general jumping on the Huckabee bandwagon to scapegoat gays. No surprise here. Since the US military is at least 2% gay, if not more, does the general blame that force's failures in Vietnam and Iraq on gays, too.

I swear to God I don't know why the US has turned into such a hateful, ugly spectacle like this. It's government is an embarrassment to its people. Maybe we can blame Ronald Reagan for starting the "Christian" theocracy that now bullies us daily.

As for spidermean2, my God bless him with gay children or grandchildren. It worked to cure his Lord Cheney so maybe there's hope for him, too.

Posted by: coloradodog | March 18, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Boy my hot tub time machine sent me to 60's wasn't this the same argument for keeping women and minorties out of the military and jews as well. And correction religous soilders is referring to christians in everyday life not our military......

Posted by: c_note_70 | March 18, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

The Dutch, on average, are statistically taller than Americans. Perhaps that factoid may the reason for the fall of Srebrenica. At least that factoid has some scientific basis, unlike Sheehan's comment.

Posted by: demostheneswashdc | March 18, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Well, in Sheehan's case the Marine Corps obviously forgot to issue him a brain.

Posted by: OIFVet | March 18, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

The idea that an army refuses to perform it's assigned duty because of homosexuals among them is preposterous. And WAY insulting to all the heterosexual troops who serve.
This guy is suggesting that the whole army's reason-to-be is based on sexual behaviour. He is suggesting that the heterosexual troops are SO WEAK in the face of homosexuality that they simply cave in and cannot fight because they are so distracted that they wilt when raising a gun to fire at the enemy.
Presumably, heterosexuals are NOT attracted to homosexuals, they are attracted to women. These men seem perfectly capable of fighting with women at their sides, or in supporting roles.
What an INSULT this guy levels at all our soldiers who fight and die, every day.

Posted by: cms1 | March 18, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Colonel Klink is smarter than this General.
I

Posted by: mdpilot | March 18, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

What a flippin moron. I guess a gay guy made off with his wife, and this is his revenge. I'd love to see the 'evidence' backing up his accusation. Jerk.

Posted by: reader011 | March 18, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Spidermean2: You are right on. Homosexuals want to serve in the military but they may be sorry they got their wish. There are also hate groups that have infiltrated the military. They could kill homosexuals and lesbians and make it look like an accident. It has been known to happen.

Posted by: georgana | March 18, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

I suggest the general visit Srebednica and the surrounding area before he opens his mouth again. And yes, I have been there- I used to live in Bosnia. An afternoon spent looking at the topography would give the General a lot to think about. With the Serbs holding all the high hills surrounding the city, there was no way to lift the siege without massive intervention. He might want to look at parallels with Sarajevo, which has similar topography, though not as extreme. The Sarajevo siege was the longest in modern warfare, and was not lifted in short order despite the eforts of thge troops of many nations. What is the General's rationale for the failure of the US Army to lift that siege- the presence of closeted homosexuals?

The Dutch were explicitly ordered NOT to shoot- perhaps the General's point is that the gay soldiers were too good at following orders?

Time to admit this General is either simply grasping at straws or is in fact totally clueless.

Posted by: jhherring | March 18, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

once you turn the military into some type of gay social club it will never be able to defend itself.
the fact is - DONT ASK AND DONT TELL!
if its your personal business keep it personal and dont tell the rest of us about it.
and dont complicate the military function.
its not a social club. its not there to build schools, teach democracy, make friends, help with floods or earthquakes.
the role of the military is to make widows and orphans and to break things.
if we limited our mission to that - then the enemy would know that we the military came in they would just be leaving holes in the ground and bodies to put in them.
this touchy feely bs coupled with proportional response lets the enemy attack at will and leaves us holding the bag and not able to respond.
we need the great grandparent rule. if you attack America - like the 911 hijackers, well we find your great grandparents and kill them and every relative of theirs we can find - irrespective of age or sex. that makes it personal.
maybe then the relatives of the scum that attack us will issue a warning and not let them go through with the attack.
so lets get rid of the be nice social club - no gay night - bring all your boyfriends - at the nco club - and instead consentrate on killing the enemy.
and if you dont see them right off - hunt them down. and if in doubt - kill them.
gays want to serve - dont tell us about it - just get out there and kill the enemy.

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | March 18, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

To end this debate lets us just create an OPENLY GAY BRIGADE and let Gates, Cheney. Powell and Mullen lead them. Let them prove themselves first. I can imagine a lot of girly screaming once they hear bombs falling.

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Another wingnut. Where do they get these guys? American Taliban?

Posted by: osullivanc1 | March 18, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Ok, so we made adjustments throughout the years... good for us. Why are there no women protesting about not being able to become US Infantry? Why can't men go to an all female school that has some of the best professors in their field? Im white, but why cant i go to a 50cent concert? Things just aren't fair for everyone. The US Military is at a proper strength and doesn't NEED to allow -OPEN- gays/lesbians in. Maybe, when the blacks/women/jews start to stand up for the gays and protesting the permission of open homosexuals in the military, then maybe i'll rethink the policy. Until then, I say to you, life's not fair - find another job

Posted by: americansoldier1 | March 18, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

son of Irish immigrants who attended Georgetown....hmmmmmmm

Posted by: coloradodog | March 18, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

What an absolutely stupid remark by this ex general. It wasn't because they were gay but because the Dutch troops were poorly trained and led. As far as gays making poor soldiers I would suggest this general couldn't hold a candle to Alexander the Great who conquered most of the known world. And oh yes he and many of his fellow troops were gay.

Posted by: mindstorms | March 18, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

He was asked for names and answered "Hankman Berman". Well, Hankman Berman does not exist and was therefore never a Dutch Army Chief of Staff (nor was anyone with a name resembling it), much less fired from that position. Besides defamation of Dutch soldiers can this clown and homophobe be prosecuted for lying / giving false names to Congress? Oh well, he'd probably get away with it, given his clear lack of mental capacities.

Posted by: jstreet1 | March 18, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately it appears the good General lost a bit of his lost his sanity in his long career in the Marine Corps. This is simply the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Incredible. Four stars? Here's what I know about the Dutch Army based on sharing time on tank ranges in Germany back in 1985 and 1987. One hellofa good tank, mediocre training, not a whole lot of discipline. So you take this force to Bosnia and expect them to perform well? Pipe dream. BUT General it wasn't because they had gays in their units; it was the failure to train hard, lack of discipline, and weak non-commissioned and junior officers. I bet bottom dollar General, these factors weren't directly attributable to the presence of gays. By the way, the Brits I worked with and would have at my side any day of the year might have been gay, it didn't matter --- they trained hard, had rock solid discipline and were worthy partners.

Posted by: army164 | March 18, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Well, let's see...who killed the Bosnian Muslims? Why gee, it was good Serbian Christians. And while ethnic as well as religious differences played a part, one might reasonably point to Christians - you know, some of whom are right here, hooting about their god's will and slamming gays - as the proximate cause of the slaughter. Christians kill Muslims, Muslims kill Christians, and who gets the blame? The gays.

Posted by: mishi69 | March 18, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

hey sheehan maybe you are part of the reason the u.s. military is in such sad shape. antiquated thinking by old, senile military leaders is just the kind of leadership that doomed us to the position we find ourselves in iraq and afganistan. is cholesterol cheney the next expert to testify? perhaps westmoreland can be exhumed to give us his brilliant insight.

Posted by: xxxxxx1 | March 18, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

So Spidermean2 and Sheehan are both wrong.

If Christian soldiers left the service who do you want Spidermean to defend you?

Muslims alone! Hindus!

Lets stop the religious biggotry now.

Posted by: JustSomeThoughts | March 18, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

The things that generals, both retired and active, will say to keep gays out of the US military. Have they all forgotten their US military history? Didn't Thomas Jefferson "recruit" General Baron von Steuben in Paris to go to the "American Colonies" to help George Washington form an army? In today's terminology, von Steuben was openly gay and was thrown-out of the Prussian Army of King Frederick II following a "homosexual scandal". Having gays in his army never had any effect on George Washington's military campaigns, as the British will testify. Perhaps the politicians in Washington should pop over to Lafayette Park where, in the north west corner, they can see the statue of America's most senior openly gay military officer (and perhaps they could take the generals from the Pentagon to brush-up their history).

When the Brits let gays serve openly in January 2000, the retired generals predicted that the sky would fall in. The serving generals obeyed order from their political "masters" and everything went the repeal of the law went so smoothly that hardly anyone noticed (and the sky never fell-in)

Posted by: MarkWindsor | March 18, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

For americansoldier, and others who are serving or have served I remind you that serving openly doesn't mean sex in the showers, sex in the motor pool, sex in the dining facility, sex on the parade ground, sex on teh rifle range, sex on the battlefield --- in my units --- and in yours as well, all of those activities are violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice --- be you heterosexual or homosexual!

Posted by: army164 | March 18, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

hey sheehan maybe you are part of the reason the u.s. military is in such sad shape. antiquated thinking by old, senile military leaders is just the kind of leadership that doomed us to the position we find ourselves in iraq and afganistan. is cholesterol cheney the next expert to testify? perhaps westmoreland can be exhumed to give us his brilliant insight.

Posted by: xxxxxx1 | March 18, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

spidermean2 wrote: To end this debate lets us just create an OPENLY GAY BRIGADE and let Gates, Cheney. Powell and Mullen lead them. Let them prove themselves first. I can imagine a lot of girly screaming once they hear bombs falling.I can imagine a lot of girly screaming once they hear bombs falling.
============================================
I give Gates and Powell, at least, more credit than that.

Posted by: carlaclaws | March 18, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

The Dutch didn't do anything because the Dutch are wusses. The entire country is based on running away from Germany and, occasionally, surrendering to Germany.

Posted by: fireball72 | March 18, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

...'Christians kill Muslims, Muslims kill Christians, and who gets the blame? The gays..."

Sound to me like common ground for peace talks...

Posted by: rzeller | March 18, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

spidermean2: "The Bible is full of examples how God destroys unbelievers. "

I have to say - having grown up as a believer - that actually reading the Bible and seeing how Yaweh commanded his followers to lay waste to nonbelieving villages - killing all the men, women, and children, keeping only the virgin women alive for their own use - was enough to make me an unbeliever. The monotheist god is a vicious, murderous SOB, and thousands of years of slaughter, including Bosnia, shows the inspiration of God's Dexter-like psychosis.

However, following the above poster's idiocy to its logical conclusion, one must assume that the slaughter of Muslim infidels was the Christian God's doing, correct? Therefore, the gay soldiers, in failing to stop yet another Christian-backed genocide, were only facilitating the Divine Will, and deserve the poster's thanks. Down on your knees before us, spidermean2.

Posted by: mishi69 | March 18, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

to scon101, js_edit, nimes1, lmb02, jjedif, Ladyrantsalot,
have you served in the military? Or are you all bigoted against straight people? How come the highly educated gays graduates of the Ivy league are not serving the military then and coming out under DTDA?????you guys seemed to have PHds

Posted by: Rockvillers | March 18, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Silliness in uniform. If only there was knowledge or practicality under that uniform. Barry Goldwater said they didn't have to be straight, just shoot straight!

Posted by: okiedeadhead | March 18, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

What's all the fuss about using cons or homos and lesbians for canonmeat.
Everything that wears a uniform is spineless without it.
When you have no profession or special civil skills there is only one way to make a living and that is the uniform, police or military.
All that have no brains and join the military will get their brains (which they dont have) blown out on rightwing induced mondial frontieres to ensure rightwing profits worldwide.
And last but not least:
YOUR GOD IS NOT DEATH,

HE/IT/SHE SIMPLY NEVER EXISTED.

That means that all living persons will finally be fed to the worms, including their ideas about a non-existing deity.

After concluding that their is no god except in the fantasy of men, there is then also no promissed land nor is there a legitimed jewish state, so get rid of it.
Get rid of all claims with a only a religious basis.
Thomas van Aquino and the Islam are right in proclaming that earning money with money will finally bring the whole world down and otherwise meteorites from the cosmos will do.

Posted by: jwholtkamp | March 18, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"Sound to me like common ground for peace talks..."

Yep. Homophobia: common ground for the Taliban, the Pope, and Michael Savage.

Posted by: mishi69 | March 18, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the Senate is willing to consider the crazed hearsay of a discredited flag officer from another force but can't see clear to even consider the actual scientific reports of 25 of our best allies as proof positive that openly gay service has little or no effect on overall military effectiveness. Supporters or no in the Senate this is looking more and more like a legislative lynching of the US gay military as a whole. When I consider that I once served in the USMC honorably I am absolutely appalled at the idea that anyone who can earn that uniform can't not openly wear it and allow their family to share in their pride.

Posted by: kudo451 | March 18, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Could it be that perhaps the reason American forces lost in the Philippines was that a good many of the troops and officers were straight?

Posted by: Praytell1 | March 18, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse


history of deviant homosexual behavior, adultery, residential home forclosure, ptsd mental illness, tattoo, nicotene dependance, and bankruptcy are not disqualifying factors in getting a security clearance.

usa is # 1 because american dod bureaucracy does not discriminate, diversity is the law of the land, and boner breath medal of honor goes to the best "no combat" military zealot.

people without concealed gun permits and hiding guns in their vehicle are disturbing, dangerous, and a threat to homosexualand security.

vive le terror

Posted by: therapy | March 18, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

kudo451, makes a good point: the Senate is willing to hear testimony from THIS guy? Must be a few Republicans on the committee who are insisting that this absurd, outdated, and ridiculous, and insulting fellow be heard because he represents Republicans.

Posted by: cms1 | March 18, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

If truth be told, the Muzzies of Srebrenica had a horrible sense of fashion and therefore could not be defended by any self respecting gays, Dutch or otherwise.

Posted by: wagtdn | March 18, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Hatred rears its ugly head. Propped up by the good reporters at the WashingtonPost.

No wonder I spend so much LESS time here than I used to. It used to be a respectable read.

Looking to be bought out by FAUX News?

Posted by: ethanquern | March 18, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

"Sheehan later clarified that the general liberalization of the Dutch military contributed to the Srebenica debacle."

The guy is a hardcore Marine, and is not alone in seeing some very, very poorly performing and poorly cohesive European conscript soldier forces - which seem more thrown together as a social experiment than as a fighting force. Gays, pot smoking in the open, affirmative action galore, guys and their progressively appointed gal leaders that spend more time in sensitivity training than in mastering a flanking maneuver.

Another poster cited how great the Brit and Israeli forces are with gays, females, and PC rife in frontline positions.

Not so much.

The last public example of British fortitude was the 15 sailors and Royal Marines seized by the Iranians in 2007. The British public concluded they behaved disgracefully and with abject craveness. Only two enlisted Royal Marines were thought to have stood up to the Iranian captors. The others? The lead officer was eventually let go after saying he admitted the Brits were all at fault even though it wasn't true - so his people would get better treatment...Female sailor Faye Turney sent a weepy public letter begging that she be freed because "she has a child". The worst was 5'2" homosexual Arthur Batchelor, who even his own mother said was a disgrace after being spotted in a public nightclub wearing a pink nightie on release. That was the gut who said he started crying when the Iranians called him "Mr. Bean" and that he cried himself to sleep every night after that. The Iranians showed how they felt by giving the Brits "farewell gift bags from the Iranian people" that looked like pink purses - which of course the 2 Royal Marines had to be given a direct order by their commanding officer to pick up and pose in the group photo the Iranians then released...
As for Israel, they are overrated. They have significant discipline and unit cohesion problems that surfaced in the open - after Hezbollah handed them their asses in 2006. Mainly, those cohesion problems are fixed on women mixed more in combat ranks when they were once strictly rear ech than homosexuals....but also a more permissive, PC, lawyer-driven "just doing my two years" attitude.
After the Hez debacle, Israel said it was going to make all efforts to return to the "warrior spirit" of the earlier IDF.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | March 18, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Never give in to the Sodomites, General. Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

Posted by: tjhall1 | March 18, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse


risky history of deviant homosexual behavior, adultery, residential home forclosure, ptsd mental illness, tattoo, nicotene dependance, and bankruptcy are not disqualifying factors in getting a high level security clearance.

usa is # 1 because american dod bureaucracy does not discriminate, diversity is the law of the land, and boner breath medal of honor goes to the best "no combat" military zealot.

people without concealed weapon permits and hiding guns in their vehicle are disturbing, dangerous, and a threat to homosexualand security.

vive le terror

Posted by: therapy | March 18, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Blacks too. We shouldn't mix races or ethnic groups in our armed forces. Because we need a truly cohesive fighting force. Like with like, you know?

What will those liberals think of next...

Posted by: MeriJ | March 18, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Despicable.

Posted by: hitpoints | March 18, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

That's so gay.

Posted by: Thinker_ | March 18, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

To my knowledge nobody ever suggested homosexuals are more moral than heterosexuals. If we look at the record of what has happened with the oppression/rape of female soldiers by their male superiors, is there any reason to believe the same will not occur when homosexual males are superiors of heterosexual males?

Posted by: potaboc | March 18, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

The Dutch rolled over and allowed thousands to be slaughtered. Beyond that, when exactly was it the last time they actually won a war?

It's OK for gays to be in the military, but they need to keep their mouths shut about it, literally and figuratively.

Old GI

Posted by: jnsbear | March 18, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

"Its not a fear of gays, and i take offense to that comment. I have many gay friends, and I am ok with their decision. As allamer1 says, "The ability of people in the military to function together as a unit has life and death implications.." "

I have to call shenanigans on that. If you truly had 'many gay friends' you'd know that being gay isn't a 'decision' they made.

And please tell me EXACTLY how having gays serve openly affects the ability of the unit to function together?

Please, be specific. Since the dozens of soldiers I've talked to about tell me, to a man, that it's no big deal, as long as the military sets basic standards so everyone knows what to expect.

Posted by: Hillman1 | March 18, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Let Lieberman serve in the Army and command an OPENLY GAY BRIGADE. Let the cameras roll coz it could look like the 3 stooges multiplied 3 thousand times. We could be seeing troops slapping each other or shooting each other's feet. Not to exclude girly screams.

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Yes, 20 years in the USAF and we had leaders with this type of attitude. Gays have always served in our armed forces and will continue to serve. It's time they were given the same right and benefits as any other military member. They have died for their country yet their partners received no benefits. This is a disgrace for our country and to our gay citizens. Gays work in all areas of out lives, health, public safety etc. So when you need emergency help be sure to tell the 911 dispatcher not to send any gays and to tell the hospital you don't want any gay person giving you medical care. It may take a while but a straight person will get to you. How can this great nation keep their heads in the sand when it comes to human rights in this country? I guess history repeats it's self we as Americans need somebody to blame, Indians, Mexican,, Blacks, Jews, women, and now the Gays. Gays don't want special treatment they just want equal treatment under the law.

Posted by: metaken2 | March 18, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Colonel Klink is smarter than this General.
Posted by: mdpilot

Even Sgt Schultz is, and he knows nothing! Nothing!

Posted by: hitpoints | March 18, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

" If we look at the record of what has happened with the oppression/rape of female soldiers by their male superiors, is there any reason to believe the same will not occur when homosexual males are superiors of heterosexual males?"

Feminist theory 101: rape is not primarily a crime of sex. It's a crime of power, the expression of insecure, conflicted machismo striking out against the despised-but-desired "weaker sex." In other words, the roots of much rape are related to the roots of homophobia.

Posted by: mishi69 | March 18, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Far more logic would be to suggest that it is women in the army that caused the Srebrinca massacre and not the cons, homos and lesbos.
Women are suppost to protect life instead of destroying it.
So, women, brainwashed to act against their constitutio, producing and protecting life, flipped, and the muslim massacre was a fact.
All together a definition of a woman is not dificult to give.

Shortly, a woman is:

A loving and caring person.
But she also is an oportunistic and discriminating piece of sh_it, just to maintain the human species.
This way she pleases herself, friends and family with whatever comes out of her womb.

Posted by: jwholtkamp | March 18, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Totally Ridiculous.
What is more the Dutch Reject it. As reported in The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/retired-us-general-john-sheehan-links-srebrenica-genocide-to-gays-in-dutch-un-troops/story-e6frg6so-1225842693265

Posted by: guytaur1 | March 18, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

spidermean2 is funny.

Posted by: ajlerner1 | March 18, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

OPENLY GAYS means they can STARE AND DROOL OPENLY forever to their peers as they bathe.

Mullen can also bring his boyfriend and tell the troops how he loves sodomy. "Oh isn't my boyfriend cute?"

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Soo ... Did Sheehan have any pronouncement about cheney and rumsfeld surrendering to the Taliban in Afghanistan and letting OBL escape in Tora Bora??

Posted by: knjincvc | March 18, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Mullen introducing his boyfriend to the generals : "Guys, isn't my boyfriend cute?"

Another 4 star general responds : "Mine is much younger than yours and he's more cute".

The other generals hugs each other as they listen to both brag about their boy toy.

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

It's a wonder that Sheehan didn't produce a picture of the DUTCH army trainees singing SHOW TUNES as a way of training them. Such is his bigotry.

IT is stupid people like this that continues to cause such hatred and bigotry to a group of people who have EVERY RIGHT to serve their country as honorably as any other citizen.

Posted by: racerdoc | March 18, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

I remember serving in the military as a young female out of high school when all the females lived in open bays. It was absolutely sickening to see that out of 20 women in our bay only 2 were straight. It was equally frustrating when gay soldiers had relationship problems and everyone was forced to listen to them crying at each others bedside at night. Being at my wits end of not being able to change clothes or openly shower (because I didn't want to be stared at by She-MAN) I sought to complain only to find out that the Sargent First Class was also a dike. The military is full of gays already. I agree that the don't ask, don't tell policy should remain. Why do we need to publicy know that a soldier is gay, it won't afford them any special treatment. I take issue when a heterosexual soldier is forced to live in these conditions. Next the males will be asking to wear pink hair ribbons and knots in their shirts. What has this world come to!

Posted by: lesliermccree | March 18, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

We need every intelligent American to serve in the military whether they are gays or not.

However, since all the military personnel have signed up to serve in a “don’t ask, don’t tell” military, it is prudent to integrate gays to serve openly in a graduate method: (1) Don’t kick out those patriots who are named by the 3rd party; (2) Don’t implement the new policy until four years from now - so that young Christian troops who are serving in tight-quarters will have plenty of time to make re-enlistment decisions.

Posted by: f16poor | March 18, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

OPENLY showing their disease is not a right. They can serve but they should keep the disease to themselves.

They cannot wear nighties in their quarters.

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

This guy is just another Falwell and Robertson clone. Blame the gays for a leadership failure, blame the gays for an act of God (Katrina), blame the gays for an act of hate (9/11).

Posted by: Freethotlib | March 18, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Could it have been that Dutch culture or other complex issues prevented them protecting their trust?

Why was the US holding its forces back?

Not sure the General holds much situational awareness in this one.

Posted by: BillKeller | March 18, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

AMDG 19III10
Men and women inadequately trained for any assignment, combat or otherwise, whatever their sexual orientation, will perform poorly in their assignment. The general should have been aware of this before making his assessment, for otherwise one would question how he got to his level of supervision and position of leadership.

Posted by: sidayao | March 18, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

NATO, the United States, the U.N., you name it, they disgraced themselves by not stopping the violence in Yugoslavia years earlier. To blame gay Dutch soldiers is contemptible.

Posted by: markfromark | March 18, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

If anyone in the Dutch Army thinks that gays can't fight, or, are afraid to fight, let some of them go to an East Village bar in NYC. When you get there, step inside and yell, "I hate fags", and watch what happens to you. IF YOU GET OUT of the bar ALIVE, I will be greatly surprised.

Does tearing you a new a**hole mean anything to you?

Posted by: thinknblink | March 18, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Hey Ed; FYI, GEN Sheehan is not an Ex General. He is a general on the retired list of the Marine Corps. He is stil an general and would be addressed as such. If you had served in military for a couple of hours you would know the protocols. Also, any person who has served in the military and has been honorably discharged or retired is a FORMER soldier, sailor, etc.not ex. Make sure brain is engaged before striking computer key.

Posted by: melj1 | March 18, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

The issues involving gays in the military is stupid. They are already there. I was a gay in the US Navy from 1959 to 1963 serving on destroyers--they were called tin cans. Near the end of my service, I was involved in the Cuban missile crisis. I believe that most of my shipmates knew that I was gay. I think the people who are opposed to the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell", should explain why any gay or lesbian military should not be allowed to serve their country merely because of their sexual orientation. Thank you. John in San Francisco

Posted by: johnsfny | March 18, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Can an OPENLY GAY soldier or general wear mini skirt or can they use the toilets as their mini hotel inside the barracks.

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Gays are great fighters! Who can forget the brave slap-fighters who won the battle of Verdun?

Posted by: diesel_skins_ | March 18, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

spidermean2, I seriously think you're probably a self-hating, closeted homosexual. Seriously. The hardcore homophobes like you, always tend to be most vocal. Any confident, hetero man would never stoop so low as to have multiple, non-sensical anti-gay rants in one news article. Please seek help.

Posted by: michael_vantassel | March 18, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

So glad I was in the Air Force--- I think its funny these old haterosexuals know how the young crowd thinks. And I also love these 'christian' posters on here that think their invisible ghost will bring doom. I was an Atheist, I didn't have to Swear anything, I affirmed thank you very much, and you know what? No invisible voodoo ghost did anything bad to me. If you ask me, its the religious freaks that shouldn't be allowed to serve. Seems to me most of the worlds problems are created by religious zealot bigots. Christians hating Muslims, muslims hating, well-- everyone--- everyone picking on Jews---- seems us Atheists are the only ones that really get along with everyone, oh, cept religious zealot bigots----

Posted by: Aimhigh2000 | March 18, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Dear God! Gays in the military? What's next -- the blacks? Is nothing sacred?

Posted by: diesel_skins_ | March 18, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse


"And if having open homosexuals makes the military less effective at fighting wars, so much the better."

Your Typical Liberal

Posted by: screwjob11 | March 18, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Faux News Reports Ex-general links gay troops to Bosnian genocide.. While Danes Rode Dinosaurs....

Posted by: waxtraxs | March 18, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Can an OPENLY gay sue for discrimination if a straight guy don't want to bathe together with him?

Can a straight guy sue an OPENLY GAY for sexual harrassment if he stares and drool as they bathe together?

Can OPENLY gays use the toilets together with his soldier boyfriend as their mini motels?

Nothing wrong with gays in the military as long as they keep the diease to themselves.

OPENLY means OPENING the CAN OF WORMS.

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

The slaughter at Srebrenica remains as the ultimate symbol of the moral and spiritual collapse of modern europe. The failure of the Dutch to protect moslem women and children from a ragtag gang of criminals highlights like no other event the end of the european capacity to share the burdens of protecting the very civilization that their forebears resurrected from the ashes of the Dark Ages. The modern european's core traits of nihilism, cowardice, spiritiual vacuum and inability to conceive of any worth outside his own skin were laid bare in the killing fields of Sbrerenica, and his guilt for the current state of affairs no where made clearer than in the Dutch government awarding the soldiers involved medals for their cowardice. These actions are beyond tawdry, ahd raise eurodecadance to even newer heights.

There is no surprise that the homosexual is complicit in the slaughter of innocents. Civilization is many things in many places, but in the Western context it must always include protection of innocence as one of its core values and missions. The homosexual, an abomination at variance with the rythmn of nature itself, is an anti civilizational force. He stands not for one of civilization's core requirements, survival and regeneration, but rather for the fulfillment of his bizarre cravings. Of course the homosexual is deserving of pity and assistance and, to some extent, even some space to act out. But he cannot and must not be allowed to corrupt the standard bearers of civilization.

A comptetent military is nothing if not a priesthood that raises self sacrifice and self abnegation to the highest level. The homosexual--and all other sexual deviants--are the utter antithesis of this. Accordingly, the homosexual in the military context is corrosive, counterproductive, and highly dangerous.

The slaughter in cold blood of nearly 10,000 innocent women, children, and elderly remains a monument to the sordid decadence of modern europe. But it also a warning sign to western civilization's last defender. The homosexual is incompatible with the values demanded for military service. Once degenaracy and moral decadence are allowed to infect the military, civilization's collapse is written.

The time has indeed come to repeal dont ask dont tell. The time has come to ask and disinfect.

Posted by: lowfinance | March 18, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

The slaughter at Srebrenica remains as the ultimate symbol of the moral and spiritual collapse of modern europe. The failure of the Dutch to protect moslem women and children from a ragtag gang of criminals highlights like no other event the end of the european capacity to share the burdens of protecting the very civilization that their forebears resurrected from the ashes of the Dark Ages. The modern european's core traits of nihilism, cowardice, spiritiual vacuum and inability to conceive of any worth outside his own skin were laid bare in the killing fields of Sbrerenica, and his guilt for the current state of affairs no where made clearer than in the Dutch government awarding the soldiers involved medals for their cowardice. These actions are beyond tawdry, ahd raise eurodecadance to even newer heights.

There is no surprise that the homosexual is complicit in the slaughter of innocents. Civilization is many things in many places, but in the Western context it must always include protection of innocence as one of its core values and missions. The homosexual, an abomination at variance with the rythmn of nature itself, is an anti civilizational force. He stands not for one of civilization's core requirements, survival and regeneration, but rather for the fulfillment of his bizarre cravings. Of course the homosexual is deserving of pity and assistance and, to some extent, even some space to act out. But he cannot and must not be allowed to corrupt the standard bearers of civilization.

A comptetent military is nothing if not a priesthood that raises self sacrifice and self abnegation to the highest level. The homosexual--and all other sexual deviants--are the utter antithesis of this. Accordingly, the homosexual in the military context is corrosive, counterproductive, and highly dangerous.

The slaughter in cold blood of nearly 10,000 innocent women, children, and elderly remains a monument to the sordid decadence of modern europe. But it also a warning sign to western civilization's last defender. The homosexual is incompatible with the values demanded for military service. Once degenaracy and moral decadence are allowed to infect the military, civilization's collapse is written.

The time has indeed come to repeal dont ask dont tell. The time has come to ask and disinfect.

Posted by: lowfinance | March 18, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

That's an honerst Marine! No gays should be in the military..

Posted by: FloridaCitizen | March 18, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

The general cited no actual evidence to support the claim about the Dutch army, but vaguely hinted that someone (unidentified) had told him this was part of the reason. In the part of the hearing I watched, this general was unable to provide coherent responses to questions about his position, and generally did not seem to comprehend the meaning of significant questions asked from him. This leaves a very important question about the state of our military: how can an ignorant and unintelligent person like this be promoted to a top position in the US military?

Posted by: twm1 | March 18, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

"NATO, the United States, the U.N., you name it, they disgraced themselves by not stopping the violence in Yugoslavia years earlier. To blame gay Dutch soldiers is contemptible.
Posted by: markfromark"

That rests on the assumption that certain nations have a moral duty to blow lives and treasure and immediately invade any nation where slaughter and civil unrest are happening.

Then (surely not himself in the military (markfromark) can rage about why the US, UN, Europeans did not "stop it all immediately"!!

I alsways thought we should have a Do-Gooder Corps that would be under command of a non-white official of the UN - so they could have Moral Authority, I guess - that could be sent to any mess that nations thought not in their national interests to intervene in. Supported by Lefty lawyers, Hollywood, the EuroLeft, and so on. Stocked with Do-Gooder sorts happy to go in jugles to 3-4 years and fight and die to stop some noble Congolians from killing noble fellow Congolese and so on....

But as is, we rely on a diffident UN and equally diffident Peacekeepers that barely protect when they are not out tapping the underage girls or pillaging the area. With Bosnia, after the UN failed and the Peacekeepers ran, it was up to a US NATO effort to fill the gap - which it did. All credit to Bob Dole and Bill Clinton for stepping in after the UN's abdication and transplanting backbones into Europeans which initially wanted nothing to do with getting into Bosnia.


Posted by: ChrisFord1 | March 18, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

I think Christians should not be allowed to openly setrve in the military. Why? Simple. The primary purpose of the military is to defend us and to kill our enemies. I believe the Bible says that Jesus said for us to love our enemies. That we should turn the other cheek. That we should not worry about what happens to us on earth, as we must look forward to being in Heaven with God, the Father. Therefore, being in the military is against everything that Christ taught. Right? Every true Christian then should resign from the service or be discharged for lying about their religious beliefs. Better yet, let's have a don't ask, don't tell about your Christianity since you obviously cannot serve two masters, God and the military.

Posted by: mikel7 | March 18, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Former Congressman Massa pretty much "queered the deal" on gays serving openly in the military any time soon.

He could hardly wait to get into the pillow fights and penis bump games in the House gym lockeroom.

Some of you may see the problem here ~ many of you won't.

Best you go join some other army first ~ see how it is ~ and what happens when you "act out" or "openly serve".

I think that's what you think is going to happen ~ but that's not it.

Posted by: muawiyah | March 18, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Scapegaying.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | March 18, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

I fail to see the connection between being sexually odd and how well a soldier performs - especially as this particular declaration of an example doesn't come with an explanation. Were there refusals to obey orders from above by homosexual soldiers? Somehow I doubt it, otherwise that would've been cited as proof.

The way I see it is that one's sexuality doesn't give any particular group immunity from stupidity - gays now can't say they're too smart to join the military, making them just as suspectd as the rest of them. Clearly from the remarks of the Marine General above, stupidity can take you a long way in a military organisation.

Posted by: icurhuman2 | March 18, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

lowfinance: "There is no surprise that the homosexual is complicit in the slaughter of innocents. "

Funny, I think that it's no surprise that Orthodox Christians were not only complicit in the slaughter, THEY DID THE SLAUGHTERING.
Of course, the openly gay were complicit in many of the previous mass murders: the Crusades, wars of imperialism, Croatian genocide during WWII, Russian pogroms, slavery, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, witch trials, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, violence in Ireland...all facilitated by them damn gays.
Oh wait...that bloody, gut-spilling stuff was perpetrated largely by Bible-believing Christians, you know, the folks who think gays are damned to Hell?
Oh, never mind...

Posted by: mishi69 | March 18, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

So the general is implying that when the time came for these gay soldiers to protect innocent lives, they failed to perform their duty because they joined the Dutch military solely to promote their social cause? Is there evidence such as witness statements to assert that a vast majority of the gay Dutch soldiers were cowardly because they ultimately did not care about the mission in Bosnia? They did not care because it was not relevant to the real reason why they joined the Dutch military - which was to solely promote the homosexual agenda? Is this being implied by the retired Marine general?

Posted by: AD11 | March 18, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Only goes to show that idiocy and ignorance can exist at the highest levels of some organizations.

Posted by: littleoldlady | March 18, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

This is really grasping at straws. Folks, it's real simple. LGBT people are good, hardworking people (well, most of them anyway) who deserve THE SAME RIGHTS as everyone else.
I personally knew a member of the navy (on an Admiral's staff) who happened to be gay and he had to be the most hardworking, driven, and extremely bright. A real asset. But he was kicked out, even over the objection of the Admiral.
DADT is crazy. END DADT!

Posted by: kashe | March 18, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Good God. What a bigot. Interesting that the Dutch don't find that they could not do the job because of gays. Obviously there was not enough training, not not enough straight troops. This general needs to get a head shrink and to get his facts straight (no pun intended). He's out of the military and needs to stay out.

Posted by: charlesvilagboy | March 18, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

OMG! He did not say that!

Posted by: keedrow | March 18, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

lowfinance - or maybe we should call you lowintelligence - try using some facts before you begin your diatribe against homosexuals.

It wasn't 10,000 women, children and elderly killed, it was 7000 men and boys over over 13.

And exactly how many homosexuals are in the Dutch military?? 3 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent? And yet THEY are the ones who didn't do their job while the other 97% of straight soliders somehow did?

Please, you're just a homophobe spouting unintelligent bigotry. Please crawl back under the rock you came out from under. Idiot.

Posted by: B-rod | March 18, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

It's unpleasant to draw a line from gays serving openly to deaths on the battlefield, but that is what the situation requires. I dislike seeing that type of coarse debate but I'm not convinced that anything less could adequately demonstrate the point that Sheehan wants to make. When things go wrong in the military, people die, often in large numbers.

Posted by: blasmaic | March 18, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

What makes so many of you people who are criticizing this general think you know more than he does? His JOB was to lead, rate, and evaluate troops.....that is the whole purpose of having military commanders. They are responsible to THEIR own superiors (and civilian chiefs) for providing military rediness. If they say that gay troops won't work in particular fields, you can bet there's a damn good (and legitimate)reason for it.

Posted by: MMCarhelp | March 18, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Totally irrational. He presents no examples that gay soldiers performed any differently than heterosexual soldiers. Throughout history, the military has been full of homosexual activity, so history is against this guy's logic. He's just another bigot.

Posted by: observator1000 | March 18, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

I agree with civil rights for everyone in general, and I even think the military will probably survive the end of DADT. But I am disturbed by the ad hominem nature of so many of these posts. Sheehan is a veteran--a general--four stars. Why can't people respect the person and address the issue? It's fair to point out, say, that the Brits have pulled it off (whoops--sounds sexual) but why say that this general "must be crazy" or the like? Maybe he isn't a a bigot, maybe he is just expressing his personal opinion--protected under the first amendment.

I do think its fair to say that his thinking is antiquated, as this is not really an attack but a characterization of his position relative to another. I am actually surprised that more officers have not come out against the idea of ending DADT.

Posted by: scientist1 | March 18, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Some folks have erroneously concluded that Sheehan said gay troops lost the battle.

In fact, he said poor training and weak leadership cost the battle, and that permitting gays to serve openly had increased the training and leadership challenges.

Posted by: blasmaic | March 18, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

General Sheehan appears to have some serious problems with his sexual preferences. When I was in the Army the number of gays and lesbians was 10-15%, the same as the general population. No problem. It's the homophobes that have some serious issues and should seek professional help.

And for the "God Squad" out there demeaning the character and worth of the gays and lesbians, created by your God. Are you saying God made a mistake?

ESAD!

Posted by: rcasero | March 18, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

B-rod

The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica put the number at 8,373 acc. to wiki. As the name of the list itself suggestes, this should be taken as a minimun. The figure u cite is clearly too low.

Furthermore, it is a matter of record that women and girls were among the victims.

As i do believe i clearly state above, the problem the homosexual in the military creates is not one of any alleged incompetence on his part, as your biased commentary wrongly insists i stated. My view is and remains precisely what I stated above: "The homosexual is incompatible with the values demanded for military service." Read for yourself the post above from the woman who served with lesbians.

Your choosing to call me names shines a bright light on your character, for all here to enjoy.

thank you!

Posted by: lowfinance | March 18, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

What's wrong with creating a GAY BRIGADE if gays truly want to join the military?

Don't they want to serve with their fellow gays?

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Okay. This. is. the. last. straw. I. have. had. enough. I declare!

Posted by: AnnsThought | March 18, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

no sling boys club in the open. want to play butt pirate do it in private.

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | March 18, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

There aren't enough gays in the general population to form a unit within the military. Blacks and Japanese were significant minorities during World War II.

Posted by: blasmaic | March 18, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

The General is anti-gay rights. His collective memory failed to advise:
-The Dutch troops were on mission impossible
-They had not the number of troops, required weapons to cover the territory assigned.
-These troops were accelerated from training
-Commanding officers were not given the support as required from other NATO members.
-Time was of the essence

The General is a good man , but his memory suffers under the fog of discrimination.

If he had time to walk the Vietnam wall ,I would show him the names of two great gay Americans. They had no more to give on that day in 1969. We are here because of them.

God bless America and all members of the Military.

Posted by: COWENS99 | March 18, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

I think that spidermean fears his own urges.

These fools apparently do not know that the 300 Spartans who held off the Persian Army were all homosexual, fighting beside their lovers, knowing they would not show cowardice then. And they did a great job against the hateful heteros, didn't they?

Posted by: gkam | March 18, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse


lowfinance,

although your analysis is brilliant, it is incomplete. the "disinfect" remedy is cute, but highly unlikely.

how many delusional pretty boys in uniform, phony soldiers, sunshine patriots, stupid social workers, mentally ill troopers, nicotene-dependant tattooed warriors, and expensive military police cowards are seriously going to hunt down their "boner breath" medal of honor winning gay brothers?

american men are being effectively emasculated by retards, ritalin, family court, and "gun control" liberal law enforcement tradition.

vive le terror

Posted by: therapy | March 18, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Americans must revolt. This type of bashing crosses the line. We can't tolerate this anymore, or we will all perish. Stand up and fight back, starting NOW!

Posted by: AnnsThought | March 18, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

As one familiar with the issue at the time, General Sheehan's statement is absurd. His recollection of the events surrounding Srebrenica is completely off base. The Dutch were in Srebrenica under UN auspices, but rules of engagement prior to Srebrenica did not permit UN forces to engage in active defense of a city. Moreover, the Dutch forces were not armed appropriately to engage in major military combat, and were significantly outnumbered by the Bosnian Serb troops. The only thing that could have potentially prevented the Serb incursion would have been an air attack, but it was determined that the troops were too close together. Finally, no one expected a mass murder on the scale that ensued. Gays in the military had nothing to do with this.

I recall being on a Dutch ship in the 1990's and discussing the introduction of female sailors to the crew. I asked an American naval commander about the possibility of introducing women on US Navy vessels. I was told that this could NEVER happen on US ships becasue it would undermine morale and lead to too many problems. I belive the same was said about African Americans in the military decades before.

It's time for military leaders to move beyond their personal prejudices and serve their country with the fairness and equality our constitution was created to protect.

Posted by: calcetto | March 18, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Looks like a lot of people here who accuse others of suffering from homophobia are actually suffering from Generalphobia themselves. The General makes some damn good points.

Posted by: MMCarhelp | March 18, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Let me guess what a OPENLY GAY BRIGADE would look like.

1. They would change their uniform to pink and it would look like tights.

2. Their form of exercise would be aerobics.

3. Their military parade would look like Mardi Gras

4. They would scout for a pistol that would also serve as hairblowers.

5. More parties and lesser military training.

6. Feared by young boys and laughingstock by their enemies.

7. AIDS and not bullets will be number 1 cause of death.

There are lots of gays that can easily fill up 5 brigades. What is stopping them to create one?

They don't like it coz they don't want to be with their fellow gays with guns. They would be more comfortable in the company of gays with hairblowers and not guns.

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Launch a query.

Posted by: Bitter_Bill | March 18, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Leave the General alone. He has opinions based on generational mores and experiences only he can interpret. He is retired. He is one voice. He has no authority. Turn the other cheek, and focus on a bigger problem; success can and will be painful for everyone involved in this.

Consider something as banal as simple sleeping logistics. Beyond open bay berthing (think boot camp, berthing on ships, hooches in the field, etc.), an individual's sexuality, straight or GLBT, has to be respected, right? Two primary living quarters for the military; singles in the barracks, and families in base housing. In the barracks environment they do not authorize different (i.e, attracting) genders to room together. In the name of fairness, the same will have to apply to GLBT after DADT is repealed. Homosexuals will not room together, and it's doubtful a hetro male or female will be rooming with a homosexual or lesbian. So they will be required to provide every single service member their own room. That's actually been a goal of the USAF for a while, but for all the services to do that will be a hefty bit of construction, and/or a lot of authorization to live off base (both of which costs the taxpayer a fortune).

As far as base housing for GLBT couples/families, that may actually be easier to physically facilitate, (less the fact base housing tends to be somewhere between Mayberry and Peyton Place, but conservative bastions nontheless). I'm curious about willful interpretation of the Defense of Marriage act signed by Bill Clinton. While problematic to enforce upon the individual states, military bases are Federal property. Housing is only for married folks. Not boyfriend/girlfriend. Not engaged. Married, with certificate in hand. The Federal government said "one man and one woman". Will be hard to authorize homosexual couples, regardless of whether they have kids or not, to live in base housing.

And military people live all over the world, and in places where homosexuality results in, oh, beheadings. So there will also have to be some renegotiation of SOFA agreements with some of the countries who allow us basing rights. Kuwaitis, Bahrainis, Qataries, etc. don't take to U.S. liberalism too well.

As far as attitude, the military youngsters I manage on a daily basis, from what I can tell, really don't give a flip in the workplace. Like their civilian counterparts, they have a job to do, and they recognize and honor talent and commitment. Does not mean they'll easily morph their respective sexual ids and not think twice about GLBT couples at the respective military balls, but they are socialized to the concept much more so than the poor old General.

Peace

Posted by: Just_a_Peanut_in_the_Gallery | March 18, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

So any time someone's position doesn't align with the gay lobby its a sign of homophobia?

What an intellectually infantile exercise.

I would imagine that even liberals with an IQ over 100 cringe when they hear that epitaph hurled with no defining criteria what-so-ever.

Posted by: scott3 | March 18, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse


Bit of a stretch.

Posted by: T-Prop | March 18, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

General Sheehan can not shoot straight on this one. I watched from the NATO headquarters in Naples, Italy as the Srebrenica situation unfolded. The Dutch Commander at Srebrenica pleaded with his higher-ups at the UN HQ in Zagreb Croatia to take action. The UN Force General (not Dutch, but from another NATO Nation) would not let the Dutch Commander step out of his UN Peace Keeping role and into the role of Peace Maker. Later NATO took command as Peace Makers and the Dutch tossed away their Blue UN Helmets. They proudley donned their nations combat colors and enforced the peace. Gay had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: capecolt | March 18, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse
If the military will allow OPENLY GAYS, it's a sign for Christian soldiers to leave the military otherwise they will be annihilated by the enemies. God will not protect them.
=====================================================
Well I got news for you Spidey, this god of yours has never protected us.

Posted by: T-Prop | March 18, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse


Sure, and we are going to build all new nuclear submarines for the Navy to give each and every sailor on a nuke his "own room" instead of berthing them 9 men together in three triple-decker bunks in a tiny room.

The nukes will all be redesigned to be 2,000 feet long and 200 feet wide to afford every sailor his own spacious private living quarters.

Of course they will have a top speed of 8 knots and be as loud as a steam locomotive, but hey, anything in the name of progress.

Posted by: screwjob11 | March 18, 2010 11:37 PM | Report abuse

I have gay classmates before and after class they flock with our female classmates and bond with them.

If ever they want to serve OPENLY in the military why would they be sleeping and bathing in male quarters and not with female's.

It does not make any sense.

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 18, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

For those of you who think having gays in the military serve openly will somehow break down or degrade the ability of the military to protect and serve, must not think very much of our military. You really think our soldier can't defend our country at the highest level of professionalism and dedication and sacrifice if they have to do it next to a gay man or woman? Sheesh. Get a life.

Posted by: lenny2 | March 18, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Peanut, thank you for your post.

I agree we owe the General respect, but the looniness of his comment doesn't help his argument.

Yours, at least, presents some practical considerations. As you seem to acknowledge (in omission), gays and lesbians have long served in our forces, and we have no reason to think their service less than honorable.

But yours is one of the first clear simple statements of the adjustments we might have to make to accommodate openly gay servicemembers. Just a question: do you have any idea how those issues have been dealt with by the British, Candians, Israelis, etc?

Posted by: thmas | March 18, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

spidy2: sorry but you are about 30 years too late with the cornball comments--all that was said about women when we were integrated into the forces (even the hairdryer joke is old--like your grandpa old, dude LOL). Man up spidy2, things change.

Thanks just_a_peanut---that's actually the best assessment of "sleeping logistics" I have read and it hits the nail on the head of practicality which has been something that I felt was more likely to be a problem then accepting and acknowledging GLBT. Race and gender are easily visible and can be integrated simply based on sight---GLBT has to be declared making it more problematic.

Posted by: mil1 | March 18, 2010 11:52 PM | Report abuse

I am always happy to see the likes of spidermean2 on threads like this. Nothing but the 'arguments' of spoiled and braindead children, and easily of of the greatest testaments to the absurdity and irrationality of the obsessed homophobe's general thinking.

Posted by: bEEarCUB | March 18, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

thmas, thanks for that. I've not a clue, but I'll bet there are some commonwealth people observing the thread and maybe will chime in with their practical observations. Those are good places to go to learn mitigation strategies.

And there was no omission. I was simply trying to divorce emotion from the post. There's enough of that in the thread to distract from the issue. But I will say I joined the service when I was 17, and now I'm 49. I certainly have served with G/L/B over the years. Some were obviously so, and others you would never of had a clue. Regardless, I cannot and will not call someone who hid their sexuality pre/post DADT in order to serve less as somehow being than honorable. At the end of the day, we're all on the watch, working the mission, and covering each other's 6. Some of us are angels, but most of us have a skeleton or two in the closet. We're just people, regardless of orientation. It'll all work out once DADT falls to the tides of history. And we'll still be a formidable force to reckon with.

Posted by: Just_a_Peanut_in_the_Gallery | March 19, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Hey Sheehan.....Homophobes have been shown to be extremely insecure about their own sexuallity.......Spidermean? You here that?

Posted by: fishinfool | March 19, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Just cut his pension and send him with hat in his hand back to D.C.

Posted by: Nelia | March 19, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Joining the military, as life sacrifice to Our Nation, is a "rite of passage" for young men developing their sense of self - their "identity" - as a man, and while homosexuals have valiantly and nobly served in all our wars, the present DA/DT policy is appropriate for unit cohesion and assimilation.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Scum LIeberman is just pandering for votes.

Posted by: iamerican | March 19, 2010 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Someone needed to ask him if he thinks we are winning or losing in Afganishtan or in Iraq,,, Gays are serving openly in the coalition forces,

Doesn't that answer the question about their presence being a detriment to the armed services. American Soldiers are serving side by side with coalition forces around the world, and their are openly gay soldiers in those armies,,

But we need all the help we can get over there and we need other countries to give the appearance that we are not acting alone in the middle east,,

So our military leaders are leading and serving along side openly gay soldiers every day

Posted by: EastCoastnLA | March 19, 2010 1:55 AM | Report abuse

Absolutely the most ignorant man!!!

How could this man have been a top general?

Really scary.

Posted by: BarbarainPalmSprings | March 19, 2010 2:28 AM | Report abuse

since none of the peanut gallery has even commanded anything...
they have no background to confirm or deny...
how can they comment at all...

Posted by: DwightCollins | March 19, 2010 6:09 AM | Report abuse

If women can serve, ANYONE can serve.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | March 19, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

When we stop banning gays from openly serving in the military, then it will become forbidden for bigots like Sheehan to openly spout their hate while they are serving. That's what Sheehan, the Repubs and the *religious* right are really afraid of---losing their ability to openly express their hatespeech. *Leaders* like Sheehan will cease to exist in the military--and that's a very good thing. How can we trust someone so ignorant and hate-filled to lead our military? We can't. Get them out!!

Posted by: mobrooks | March 19, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

"Homosexuals will not room together, and it's doubtful a hetro male or female will be rooming with a homosexual or lesbian."

Peanut: You raise some valid questions about logistics.

But let me tell you the gay man's perspective.

I've bunked with countless straight men. I've showered with them. I've played sports with them.

I've never, not once, hit on one of them.

First off, far fewer of you straight lads are nearly as irresistable as you think.

I don't think the housing issue will be as complicated as you think. In part because the younger kids these days don't think twice about having gay roommates.

I can't count the number of gay friends I have here in the DC area that live in group houses (often multiple people in the same room) with straight guys.

Yes, there will be some challenge in some of the logistics.

But it's worth doing.

And our fighting forces will be stronger for it.

Posted by: Hillman1 | March 19, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

I think Sheehan did serious damage to the anti-gay argument in this debate.

His idiotic "Dutch gays ruin everything" argument was debunked literally within minutes of him having made it. From both Dutch officials and Americans that were on the scene at the time.

It makes it pretty clear that the anti-gay crowd has pretty much run out of arguments.

Posted by: Hillman1 | March 19, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

What i want to know is why they target Gay/Lesbian people for their sex lives when they don't equally target other Biblically Inappropriate Boinking?
What about all those people who are married (in church/temple/ashram/mosque) and cheat on their spouse? All the folks who have sex outside of marriage? Why aren't all those people kicked out of the military equally based on biblical teachings? If they insist that some live exactly according to the Bible, then we must ALL live according to the Bible. And not just the bits and pieces we're okay with. All of it. Including all the Old Testament stuff where the explicitly anti-homosexual bits are located.

Posted by: ninadear | March 19, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone ask General Sheehan to explain how the Dutch are superb contributors to the ISAF mission despite the fact that gays still serve openly? Just about every military friend I have who served in Afghanistan cites the Dutch and the Canadians as some of the best fighters there. Both countries allow gays to serve openly. Don't ask don't tell needs to be repealed in the interest of our national security.

Posted by: karlabeth17 | March 19, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

RI DIC U LOUS !!!!!
Glad this dinosaur has retired. He needs to go away completely. His opinion means nothing. It's the 21st century.

Posted by: sherrycn | March 19, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Sin is everywhere today in society and few folks are speaking out against it. Even priests from the pulpit are afraid to speak out against for fear of losing their misguided flock. Homosexuality is an abomination against God. God does judge us when we live sinful lives by handing us over to our sinful passions. In essence, we judge and condemn ourselves for being stupid and turning to sin and away from God.

On another practical matter though, if a civilian wants to know what is like being in close quarters with homosexuals - just go to the YMCA Rhode Island Ave, DC facility just off Dupont Circle. 5 minutes in the locker room around noon on a workday and you'll feel like you're in a mental institution - Creepy and scary. In the late 90s YMCA had to install shower stalls in the open shower room because the homosexuals had no self restraints in close quarters.

Homophobia means “I’m gay and in your face and I don’t care if you and I rot in hell forever”. It seems I’ve seen this term used quite a bit on this board.

Posted by: SaintFrancis | March 19, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

This Sheehan must be a relic from the Eisenhower/McCarthy era and if he's not he's certainly channeling both of them.

I am gay, I was in the military in the 60s. Gay and straight worked and lived together pretty much in harmony.

In fact we got along better with the rest of the crew than the few bigoted white boys who hated the blacks, philipinos and puerto rican men on the ship. That's where the real trouble reared it's ugly head.

One character on our ship, a STRAIGHT man had contracted Syphillis 12 times in less than 24 months. Hey at least he was single.

Everytime the ship hit a port of call the first people out frequenting the prostitutes were the straight guys. They were crazy about that stuff.

I was discharged honorably at the end of my six year tour of duty. I always did my job, followed orders and always watched out for my shipmates.

Gay men and women have as strong a sense of duty and have the power and knowledge to defend our country as much as any hetero. In fact most of the deserters and consciencious objectors during the years have reflected the ration of gays to straights in the general population.

Sheehan needs to retire to his recliner he is now totally irrelevant to any other than old men like McCain who trot people like Sheehan out when they want some to echo their sentiments.

Since when does the urge and ability to procreate somehow make you better than the rest of us?

I've known some very tough gay men and women that I've watched kick the asses of supposedly straight men.

I also had an uncle who had 13 kids and was as fey and limpwristed as they come. There was no way he would have made it through boot camp.

So the world has to running on stereotypes.

Posted by: davidbronx | March 19, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Wow,no wonder the US forces are unable to find Taliban leaders - they are sooo busy thinking about who in their unit might be gay they can't do their jobs! This moron was a general?!...Really?!! no wonder the wars in the middle east go on forever!!

Posted by: lsf07 | March 19, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Leave this distinguished warrior alone.
Levin should not have asked for his professional opinion
unless he already knew what the General's response would be.
And yes, all of Europe is sheltered under America's nuclear umbrella-why should they develop an offensive capability when they know we will, again, come to their rescue.
It is more fun to "socialize" the military and thereby placate the lunatic fringe.

Posted by: donovan29 | March 19, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Ed sure is concerned about homosexual issues. Is it personal or just to draw out the trolls?

Posted by: corrections | March 19, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

How did this guy get to become a General with his thought processes?

Posted by: Riograd | March 19, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse


liberal law enforcement homosexual world policemen, especially dutch nato peacekeepers are exposed to be cowards in dangerous moments of emergency.

the gay brigades only serve and protect themselves.

afghanistan has been given the burdeon to "disinfect" or disolve the 1979 mental illness.

vive le terror on delusional pretty boys in uniform

Posted by: therapy | March 19, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Is this a joke? Did you fail to give the full story of the General's comments? It doesn't make sense. I'm a conservative and I see that some of the people making comments, here, think this has something to do with being conservative. Why? Have you been drinking your own cool-aid? What the General is quoted as saying does not sound rational, standing on its own. That is why I think there must be more to it.

Posted by: donchurch | March 19, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

This guy is a total idiot. Seems like the pope or the baptists got to him. He should be committed to an insane asylum.

United States is supposedly fighting for democracy -- but within the U.S. they treat gays like secondary citizens. Being black or being gay is just as natural. If blacks or women’s rights were cast to the masses to decide … then the majority or lunatic fringe in this case -- has the advantage to decide minority rights.

Posted by: MacDonald1 | March 19, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien told the Vatican that there was to be no cross erected over the Canadian Parliament buildings figuratively speaking; when the Pope demanded the Prime Minister go against gay rights. An Alberta bishop had the audacity to say that The Canadian Prime Minister would go to hell for going against the church. Such outrageous evil threats. The Right Honourable Prime Minister in return; basically told the Pope to go to Hell! The Honourable Irwin Cotler, Canadian Minister of Justice, stood for equal rights for the gay community. With reference to protecting the children. The Honourable Hedy Fry, member of the Canadian Liberal Parliament, who happens to be a doctor who delivered many babies; spoke eloquently to defend the rights of babies being born and stated that she was in fact defending their rights by speaking on behalf of equal rights for the children and youth of the future -- defending their integrity and dignity. Minority rights should be decided by a dignified judicial system and/or a compassionate government.

Posted by: MacDonald1 | March 19, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

There is no scientific evidence to prove any of the cross related bogus elements of christianity. Civilization goes back 1,000,000 years; 996,000 years before the Greeks, Romans and the Jews and 998,000 years pre-dating the myth of christianity which is a mere 2010 years old. In the year 300 AD when Emperor Constantine, who to some was the first pope; went on to fabricate Christianity - a fantasy - which turned out to be one of the most hateful & evil concoctions ever perpetrated on the world. The Vatican basically supported Hitler and religion is responsible for more corruption and violence in the world. Pope Ratzinger was involved in the Nazi youth. The Pope with his blatant witchcraft related to the bible and its hateful beliefs; tries to rule with extreme prejudice against a world … that may fall victim to religions' absolute evil. Many theologians state quite correctly that the birth; crucifixion; resurrection and other elements of christianity actually didn’t even happen! The pope is running a bigger fraud than Madoff’s $50 billion ripoff. Today’s evangelical extremists are like the nazis who cast others into ovens & are actually supremacists - who practice their bogus hocus pocus - and are trying to suppress and deprive others of their happiness and their legal rights in an open and proud society. Bring back the period when they threw the christians to the lions.

Posted by: MacDonald1 | March 19, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I am the son of a catholic father who never went to church and a protestant mother who took us to church and Sunday school. Although we as young children would sneak out the side door and play by the cannon from World War One where my grand-father fought for freedom as a Sgt Mgr at Vimy and father who fought at Normandy on D-Day for democracy. Onward christian soldiers; I think not. Such absolute drivel. To be manipulated by a santa claus; an easter bunny and worst of all a bogus cross. One should appreciate each day of life and not expect another and if there is it might be given by a God of Love. Einstein stated in a letter recently auctioned that the bible was a collection of primitive legends. He said believing in God was childish and he as a Jew is no different than another person and are not chosen by God. Do you want to be lambs at the slaughter or be wise and reject religious cultist manipulation? Mean & nasty; run by evil and bogus religious cults from Rome or wherever. Is this the world you want? The pope talks about ending prejudice and hate; what a hypocrite! Religion is a crutch for the insecure. Appreciate every day and if there is no tomorrow; then know that you were fortunate to have lived on this earth!

Posted by: MacDonald1 | March 19, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

For those of you trying to use the bible as an excuse to slam gays in the military just think how the bible was written. Ever play the game telegraph? Every one sits in a circle and the first person whispers a message into the ear of the next person. This is repeated around the circle until it gets back to the original whisperer. The message is never what it started out to be.This is how the bible was written. Now get off that stack of bibles and quit looking in peoples bedroom windows.

Posted by: fishinfool | March 19, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

spidermean1:

For your information blockhead the elete corps in Alexander The Great's Army was all GAY. The "Sacred Band" was usually the first to join the battle, and often the last to leave. They fought to the death on more than one ocasion, fighting to protect their fellow greeks. So much for your pink booties argument against gays serving in the military...

I find it hard to gauge the depth of your ignorance - it's off the grid...

Posted by: alfa73 | March 19, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

The military has certain requirements for one to be a proper soldier. So if the military rejects those gays who are oversexed, too feminine or those with a chip on their shoulder against heteros, I see nothing wrong with gays serving in the military. Unfortunately, there wouldn't be many gays who would qualify.

Posted by: mtpackrat | March 19, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

" What the General is quoted as saying does not sound rational, standing on its own. "

Well, having seen more of the General's testimony in context, I'd have to say that he apparently is not the sharpest pencil in the box.

But then, the sad truth is that ant-gay attitudes rarely have rationality on their side. The vast preponderance of studies show that kids do perfectly fine in same-sex households? Doesn't matter. The countries with same-sex marriage don't report any societal downsides? Doesn't matter. Armies with gay soldiers are integrating well? Doesn't matter. A religion featuring a talking snake, a talking bush, and a virgin getting knocked up by a spirit? Now THAT'S rational! THAT'S what matters!

Posted by: mishi69 | March 19, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Sheehan's assertions that allowing gays to serve in the armed forces was part of a "concious effort to socialize the military" and reap the "peace dividend" after the collapse of the Soviet Union are not only disgraceful, but factually wrong: in the Netherlands, the ban on gays serving in the military was lifted as early as 1974, well before the Berlin Wall fell.

Posted by: frankjb | March 19, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"There is no surprise that the homosexual is complicit in the slaughter of innocents. "

Complicit? COMPLICIT? lowfinance, I know I responded to your idiot post before, but rereading that phrase made me gag. So you're saying that Dutch gays not only contributed to an ineffective military, but INTENTIONALLY stood by and watched Christians kill Muslims? And why, pray tell, is that? Because they simply loved Islamic tribalism? Because they - as opposed to straight men - are bloodthirsty, Satanic beasts?

Nope, it's because, iin your pretentious codswallopese, "the homosexual...an abomination at variance with the rythmn of nature itself." Never mind that, in nature itself, over 400 species exhibit homosexual behaviors; you're not a biologist, you're a bigot.

But at least you have explained why such gay-hating societies Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Jamiaca, the USSR, and Nazi Germany were such successful societies, while Spain, the Netherlands, and the UK are places no rational person would want to live, not when they could move to Kampala instead.

Face it, "the religious heterosexual male" is responsible for the almost all bloodshed, tyranny, rape, and pillage in human history.

"The slaughte...remains a monument to the sordid decadence of modern europe."

Um, sorry. It remains another example of the religion-fueled tribalism that's been slaughtering millions for millennia.

Oh well, at least you didn't blame the International Jewish Conspiracy.

Posted by: mishi69 | March 19, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

At least one gay can be linked to genocide: Enola Gay.

Posted by: Alefroi | March 19, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Jusat a reality check here.

When Sheehan was asked to name his source in the Dutch military, he credited someone named “Hankman Berman," which the Dutch guessed was in reality Gen. Henk van den Breemen, the country’s former chief of defense staff.

Van den Breemen, presumably in the position to know, called Sheehan's assertion "absolute nonsense."

Now THERE'S a surprise: Sheehan was, er, um, making stuff up.

Posted by: mishi69 | March 19, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

All who are takingthe position that it is natural to be gay evidently do not realize that if ev eryone was gay 120years from now the world would be without human form .

Posted by: jdharwell85 | March 19, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Sheehan is such a liar. Unbelievable!!! He ought to check his facts before he lies on the stand. What utter gall.
We know that whatever the sexual preference people can still be a vital part of the forces.
How about all these rapes - women getting pregnant & having to leave their post.
Come to the 21st century everyone. Get rid of "don't ask, don't tell".!!!!!

Posted by: Tonisongbird34 | March 19, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Sheehan is a bloody disgrace.

And to think that this guy was put in a position of leadership in the US Military.

And can we say homophobic?

Posted by: KHMJr | March 19, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

jdharwell85; " j All who are takingthe position that it is natural to be gay evidently do not realize that if ev eryone was gay 120years from now the world would be without human form ."

But I DO realize that if everyone on Earth were as stupid as your post, within 120 years, no one would make it to the sixth grade.

I don't exactly know why I bother responding to smug, dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks posts - must be a flaw in my pesonality. But here goes:

Homosexuality is a natural variant (V-A-R-I-A-N-T; look it up) that occurs in literally hundreds of species, including pair bonding and child rearing by some animals.

No one in his right mind claims that homosexuality will ever replace heterosexuality. (Though even it it did, there are plenty of LGBT folks that want to become parents, and plenty of ways to make that happen, so don't fret that the world will be anything but overpopulated any time soon.) Just because some bighorn sheep incline toward homosex, that doesn't mean that sheep don't keep getting born.

So what's with the idiotic argument from the extreme? Just because some women become nuns, just because some men are infertile, that doesn't mean that the human race will end. What worries you? That homosexuality is some sort of contagious disease? Or that it's so damn attractive that every straight guy - including you - is tempted to switch?

Or are you simply looking for some brilliant argument and falling on your face instead?

To repeat: whatever its causes, homosexuality seems to be a naturally occurring variant in the human race. Same with low intelligence. But then, if everyone were bright, Glenn Beck wouldn't have a career.


Posted by: mishi69 | March 20, 2010 2:00 AM | Report abuse

To mishi 69, you decribed yourself correctly when you stated "a flaw in my personality" so change your user ID to "misfit 69".

Posted by: jdharwell85 | March 20, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company